[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:<<< Are you suggesting that I should have stayed in a church I no longer respected?
[/quote]He’s suggesting you ask what within yourself brought about the loss of respect and whether it says much more about you than it does about them.
[/quote]
Yup.
And to clarify, from what you’ve posted, it appears you are projecting onto Christianity as a whole the soap opera issues of a single congregation, perhaps even a single person in a congregation of otherwise good people.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And to clarify, from what you’ve posted, it appears you are projecting onto Christianity as a whole the soap opera issues of a single congregation, perhaps even a single person in a congregation of otherwise good people. [/quote]
OK, I’ll hold up the mirror and play along.
I agree it was not this particular church’s teaching or congregation that bothered me.
It was the minister’s actions towards another that I found to be particularly heartless and unnecessarily vicious. I view the actions of the pedophile priest the same way. If these people are to be my spiritual leader or teacher, I need to respect them. I need to look up to them. I hold them to a higher standard BECAUSE they put themselves out there to be leaders and teachers. I would not do what they did, and I’m not the leader/teacher! It would appear that I operate at a higher standard than they do, therefore, I cannot respect them as a leader/teacher. I can do a better job leading and teaching myself, thank you very much!
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And to clarify, from what you’ve posted, it appears you are projecting onto Christianity as a whole the soap opera issues of a single congregation, perhaps even a single person in a congregation of otherwise good people. [/quote]OK, I’ll hold up the mirror and play along.
I agree it was not this particular church’s teaching or congregation that bothered me.
It was the minister’s actions towards another that I found to be particularly heartless and unnecessarily vicious. I view the actions of the pedophile priest the same way. If these people are to be my spiritual leader or teacher, I need to respect them. I need to look up to them. I hold them to a higher standard BECAUSE they put themselves out there to be leaders and teachers. I would not do what they did, and I’m not the leader/teacher! It would appear that I operate at a higher standard than they do, therefore, I cannot respect them as a leader/teacher. I can do a better job leading and teaching myself, thank you very much![/quote]This was an honest and heartfelt answer. You may be surprised to learn that God agrees (and so therefore do I) that those in leadership are held to a higher standard. (James 3:1) I am sincerely sorry for whatever happened to you. I could not mean that more. The truth of the gospel does not however depend on the sinful foibles of men. (Oh my Catholic friends should be all over that one)
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The truth of the gospel does not however depend on the sinful foibles of men. (Oh my Catholic friends should be all over that one)
[/quote]
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And to clarify, from what you’ve posted, it appears you are projecting onto Christianity as a whole the soap opera issues of a single congregation, perhaps even a single person in a congregation of otherwise good people. [/quote]
OK, I’ll hold up the mirror and play along.
I agree it was not this particular church’s teaching or congregation that bothered me.
It was the minister’s actions towards another that I found to be particularly heartless and unnecessarily vicious. I view the actions of the pedophile priest the same way. If these people are to be my spiritual leader or teacher, I need to respect them. I need to look up to them. I hold them to a higher standard BECAUSE they put themselves out there to be leaders and teachers. I would not do what they did, and I’m not the leader/teacher! It would appear that I operate at a higher standard than they do, therefore, I cannot respect them as a leader/teacher. I can do a better job leading and teaching myself, thank you very much!
[/quote]
So are these people the Church?
They are part of that Church, yes. Are they THE Church? No. ‘Church’ a very broad term anyway.
Now that the weather has broken, I’m looking forward to regular attendance at the Church of Eighteen Links.
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
Church of Eighteen Links.[/quote]
Is that a Polish church?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
Church of Eighteen Links.[/quote]
Is that a Polish church?[/quote]No, it’s a congregation of web developers. <a href= X18 is their logo =]
Priests were traditionally married up until the 9th or 10th century. Non-married priests went to live exclusively in monestaries or as hermits in the desert. They did not typically serve parishes. This is still true in the Eastern Orthodox church which has not had the pedophile problems. The reason that priests used to be married. Non-married priests were prone to pedophilia and other sexual sins. The real reason that the Roman Catholic church hasn’t allowed married priests is because non-married priests are much less expensive. They actually allow married priests outside of the US as well in other Catholic branches under the Pope such as the Marinaites and Uniates.
I went to Catholic schools from K through College. I knew of at least 3 SURE cases of sexual impropriety, but I’ll tell you that probably 30 out of maybe 50 Roman priests I knew had some degree of real mental illness like OCD, alcoholism, obsession with pornography. That’s an opinion and I do not want to over state it because it would be a sin to falsely accuse someone. At least probably 30%.
Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe [unto him], through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Priests were traditionally married up until the 9th or 10th century. Non-married priests went to live exclusively in monestaries or as hermits in the desert.[/quote]
Actually they didn’t. They spent sometime in monasteries, but they weren’t exclusively in monasteries and same for hermits. As well, historically a large portion of both Eastern and Western priests remained celibate:
Source for you: Eastern Catholic Churches - Wikipedia
Incorrect: http://www.pokrov.org/display.asp?ds=Person&id=151
Yes, that will solve all the problems, let the pedophiles get married. Do you forget that married men are the highest (HIGHEST) above all other categories for abuse in all (ALL) categories towards children (usually their own children)?
Actually Catholic priests are one of the lowest if not the lowest perpetrators of child abuse. It did spike between the mid-60’s and mid-80’s but as dramatically decreased in which we have a grand total of…6 credible cases of clerical abuse in 2009 to the U.S. Bishops audit out of 65,000,000 members. 2% of all cases have been by Catholic Priests, compared to 40-60% by family members with 39 million abuse victims in America today (stats say a good whooping 90% never tell).
[quote]
The real reason that the Roman Catholic church hasn’t allowed married priests is because non-married priests are much less expensive.[/quote]
Oh, yes that I am sure it’s so expensive and that is why the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church allows married men to become priests, because it’s so expensive. I’m sure that’s why they are allowing all those MARRIED clergy coming over from the Anglican and the Episcopal congregations to come over and become priests themselves, because it’s so much more expensive.
Yes, because it is our discipline (because we were so heavily influenced by St. Paul, I would guess) that married men are not allowed to become priests, generally. The reason for priests outside the U.S. that are allowed to get married (such as in Africa) is because in some cultures men who are not married are looked as less than a man, they are mere boys still (same for a dispensation for some Latin Rite bishops to grow facial hair, as some cultures don’t view a man without facial hair as being strong). So, you can’t have obstacle such that the entire culture does not see you as a man or strong when you’re trying to be the spiritual father of that culture. However, married priests (and deacons) are still required to be celibate in their marriages. As well, priests have never been allowed to marry, both in the Eastern or Latin Rites and I’m certain that goes for the Orthodox Churches.
And, that is why we require psycho-sexual reviews of applicants to the seminary. We have had that for awhile, but I don’t have a real date for it. If you really want it, I am sure I can get you it.
Amen! Amen! I say, Oorah!
[quote]Brother Chris wrote: Actually they didn’t. They spent sometime in monasteries, but they weren’t exclusively in monasteries and same for hermits. As well, historically a large portion of both Eastern and Western priests remained celibate:
Source for you: Eastern Catholic Churches - Wikipedia
[/quote]
They were still assigned to monestaries, and the ideal practice was and is to only have married priests as RECTORS of parishes. Monk-priests were attached but always had to answer to an abbott. I don’t see how the source refutes the basic premise that married priests were the norm for many centuries.
[quote]Incorrect: http://www.pokrov.org/display.asp?ds=Person&id=151
[/quote]
By the problems, I mean an estimated 1000+ cases in the last 50 years, not one case, or 10, or 20. Do we have known cases of it being hidden in the OC?
[quote]Yes, that will solve all the problems, let the pedophiles get married. Do you forget that married men are the highest (HIGHEST) above all other categories for abuse in all (ALL) categories towards children (usually their own children)?
[/quote]
No, allow married individuals to become priests. Highest because of opportunity.
[quote]Actually Catholic priests are one of the lowest if not the lowest perpetrators of child abuse. It did spike between the mid-60’s and mid-80’s but as dramatically decreased in which we have a grand total of…6 credible cases of clerical abuse in 2009 to the U.S. Bishops audit out of 65,000,000 members. 2% of all cases have been by Catholic Priests, compared to 40-60% by family members with 39 million abuse victims in America today (stats say a good whooping 90% never tell).
[/quote]
I believe they have done a good job but I also know that when I grew up in the 70s, when it occurred in the Parish that I went to school in they went to the family and asked them to keep quiet. Priests are watched a lot more closely today.
[quote]Oh, yes that I am sure it’s so expensive and that is why the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church allows married men to become priests, because it’s so expensive. I’m sure that’s why they are allowing all those MARRIED clergy coming over from the Anglican and the Episcopal congregations to come over and become priests themselves, because it’s so much more expensive.
[/quote]
The Eastern rite allows priests to get married, because the Eastern rite was created to send priests into Orthodox communities and replace the Orthodox priests there, and they knew that the people of those communities would automatically be suspicious of unmarried priests.
As for Anglicans, there is a shortage of Priests in the US and there really is no choice anymore. I knew an individual who was part of a committee at the vatican to discuss Orthodox-Roman relations and a plan for reunification. The basic outline of the plan for priests would be for all parishes to move toward a model of a married rector with current unmarried priests serving only as associates, or becoming Bishops. My dad was an Orthodox priest who had been Anglican. When he was considering the Roman Catholic church they were going to let him become a married priest, but they told him that he had to have a separate form of income because American RC priests had to take a vow of poverty and could not have any possessions, as a policy needed to make ends meet. He became Orthodox instead, not for the money, he had to work 3 jobs, but he taught in an RC grade school, and was the religious ed coordinator for the parish, and when there was a change of the rector in the parish after 8 years, he was relieved of his position by a new rector who my dad had heard from former students was a pedophile. (My dad had helped get rid of one pedophile priest, and another who had an affair with a married woman whom he was counselling).
The Roman Archbishop of Denver (I think he may be a cardinal now) told my dad that the “official theological reason” not to allow married priests was because a priest must be able to perform mass at any time, and he wold be precluded if he had had relations with his wife in the same day. The ancient canons of the church strictly prohibit a priest from performing mass more than one time per day, but because of financial issues the church needed a priest to be able to serve 1000+ member churches.
[quote]Which ones.
[/quote]
St. Therese of Avila in Kansas City MO, St. Catherine’s Denver, Regis Jesuit highschool and Regis University, also for part of graduate school.
[quote]Yes, let’s be mature and honest with outselves, you can broaden that term as being 3 out of 5 people have some problem like OCD, alcoholism, obsession with pornography. 50 percent of Church going Christians (it’s actually higher in other congregations than it is in the Catholic Church) have an addiction to pornography.
[/quote]
What happened to Priests being held to a higher standard. I appreciate though that you are not calling me a liar.
[quote] And, that is why we require psycho-sexual reviews of applicants to the seminary. We have had that for awhile, but I don’t have a real date for it. If you really want it, I am sure I can get you it.
[/quote]
I’ve seen an improvement. Besides, a lot of my experience is with Jesuits, and I am not even sure that some of them believe in God.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Yes, that will solve all the problems, let the pedophiles get married. Do you forget that married men are the highest (HIGHEST) above all other categories for abuse in all (ALL) categories towards children (usually their own children)?
—Non-married priests were prone to pedophilia and other sexual sins.—
Actually Catholic priests are one of the lowest if not the lowest perpetrators of child abuse. It did spike between the mid-60’s and mid-80’s but as dramatically decreased in which we have a grand total of…6 credible cases of clerical abuse in 2009 to the U.S. Bishops audit out of 65,000,000 members. 2% of all cases have been by Catholic Priests, compared to 40-60% by family members with 39 million abuse victims in America today (stats say a good whooping 90% never tell). [/quote]
If for every 2000 families there is one Catholic priest, that 2% by Catholic is suddenly MUCH worse. 2000 times worse. Anyway, it’s still very bad, because the number of Catholic clergy is not equal to that of lay persons, or even male lay persons.
In fact, the Holy Apostles decreed in ~A.D. 66 that priests may be married and that they will not be asked to leave their wives. The First Ecumenical Council in A.D. 325 (among those in the Council: the Bishops of Trimythous and Myra…) decreed once again that priests may be married and may cohabit with their wives with no guilt or shame (“guilt or shame” is mentioned for Western Christians, not for other people). In order to make people understand the sanctity of marriage, the Council of Gangra (A.D. 340) anathematized anyone who would refuse to receive the Holy Eucharist from a married priest. Another Council anathematized (or defrocked, can’t remember right now) priests who would leave their wives, “for piety”!
The prohibition against marriage of clergy appeared ONLY in the west, at local councils, in the fourth century. For one reason or the other, most Western fathers, even the Saints, seem to have been ~anti-sexual.
So, no, priests (in the West), weren’t always celibate. In the East, they never were.
Priests and deacons in the Eastern (“Greek”/"Russian etc.) Orthodox Church are only supposed to abstain from intercourse for ~1 day before celebrating Mass, that day, and 1 day after (the “after” is not always mandatory). Also, they are not brow beaten/shamed into living in celibacy. It is an unwritten law that a parish priest MUST be married. Also, not all priests are confessors (able to receive confessions), since it is considered a young priest, not only lacks experience but will also fall into temptation much easier.
And in the beginning there was a monastic rule that beardless youth may not become monks until they have grown beards, lest they be a temptation.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
They were still assigned to monestaries, and the ideal practice was and is to only have married priests as RECTORS of parishes. Monk-priests were attached but always had to answer to an abbott. I don’t see how the source refutes the basic premise that married priests were the norm for many centuries.
By the problems, I mean an estimated 1000+ cases in the last 50 years, not one case, or 10, or 20. Do we have known cases of it being hidden in the OC?
[/quote]
Yes, but their structure is much different. So the ability for them to hide is a lot close to Protestant Churches being allowed to hide. The difference is that OC congregations are small enough and they are not connected as the CC that they don’t get the publicity.
[quote]No, allow married individuals to become priests. Highest because of opportunity.
[/quote]
Still doesn’t change that CC Priests are the lowest, and last time I checked there wasn’t an absence of opportunity and children in parishes.
[quote]I believe they have done a good job but I also know that when I grew up in the 70s, when it occurred in the Parish that I went to school in they went to the family and asked them to keep quiet. Priests are watched a lot more closely today.
[/quote]
That isn’t really a problem, the problem is not fixing the problem (removing the priest).
[quote]The Eastern rite allows priests to get married, because the Eastern rite was created to send priests into Orthodox communities and replace the Orthodox priests there, and they knew that the people of those communities would automatically be suspicious of unmarried priests.
[/quote]
Actually, no Catholic priest is allowed to get married. This is from Calvary. Married men can become priests, but not the other way around.
[quote]As for Anglicans, there is a shortage of Priests in the US and there really is no choice anymore.
[/quote]
Most of the Anglicans coming over the Tiber are in the UK. And in about 3 decades seminarians have doubled, so I’m not really sure there is a vocation shortage in America.
[quote]I knew an individual who was part of a committee at the vatican to discuss Orthodox-Roman relations and a plan for reunification. The basic outline of the plan for priests would be for all parishes to move toward a model of a married rector with current unmarried priests serving only as associates, or becoming Bishops.
[/quote]
Haven’t heard anything, so I can’t say. Sounds like speculation unless I can read documents.
[quote]My dad was an Orthodox priest who had been Anglican. When he was considering the Roman Catholic church they were going to let him become a married priest, but they told him that he had to have a separate form of income because American RC priests had to take a vow of poverty and could not have any possessions, as a policy needed to make ends meet.
[/quote]
Parish priests do not have a vow of poverty, only Religious priests (they only get like a 100 bucks a month if they need it like travel or something). If you’re a Parish priest you can make a million dollars a year with no problem.
[quote]He became Orthodox instead, not for the money, he had to work 3 jobs, but he taught in an RC grade school, and was the religious ed coordinator for the parish, and when there was a change of the rector in the parish after 8 years, he was relieved of his position by a new rector who my dad had heard from former students was a pedophile. (My dad had helped get rid of one pedophile priest, and another who had affair with a married woman whom he was counselling).
[/quote]
Heard doesn’t make him a pedophile. I hear this all the time, “hey you know Father so and so from so and so parish we visited on our mission, Pedophile.” I call up the Parish, Father is still there hasn’t been charged with anything, so he’s innocent as far as I can tell.
[quote]The Roman Archbishop of Denver (I think he may be a cardinal now) told my dad that the “official theological reason” not to allow married priests was because a priest must be able to perform mass at any time, and he wold be precluded if he had had relations with his wife in the same day. The ancient canons of the church strictly prohibit a priest from performing mass more than one time per day, but because of financial issues the church needed a priest to be able to serve 1000+ member churches.
[/quote]
Actually, (the official title is Archbishop of Denver, not the Roman Archbishop) the Canon doesn’t, it was diocese to diocese discipline for awhile that a priest would perform only three masses a day (some like NY and Boston with their high vocation levels had it down to one a day), except for certain feasts and solemnities. However, that changed awhile ago and priests pretty much any where can perform as many as they can. I was an Usher on Ash Wednesday and I watched the Bishop do a Mass every hour and half.
[quote]St. Therese of Avila in Kansas City MO, St. Catherine’s Denver, Regis Jesuit highschool and Regis University, also for part of graduate school.
[/quote]
Ah…Jesuit.
[quote]What happened to Priests being held to a higher standard. I appreciate though that you are not calling me a liar.
[/quote]
They are, but we have to remember their humans like the rest of us. They have higher standards, but they have the same lows.
[quote]I’ve seen an improvement. Besides, a lot of my experience is with Jesuits, and I am not even sure that some of them believe in God.
[/quote]
Yeah, I have a few brothers in the Jesuits and I won’t scandalize anyone here, but the Jesuits have a lot of change to do.
[quote]Yes, let’s be mature and honest with outselves, you can broaden that term as being 3 out of 5 people have some problem like OCD, alcoholism, obsession with pornography. 50 percent of Church going Christians (it’s actually higher in other congregations than it is in the Catholic Church) have an addiction to pornography.
What happened to Priests being held to a higher standard. I appreciate though that you are not calling me a liar. [/quote]
Someone who had sex even once before marriage may not (ever) become a priest.
If a priest jerks off on a few separate occasions after being ordained he is to be defrocked.
If a priest’s wife cheats on him he must either leave her or leave the clergy…
Before some smart ass starts laughing, these is to give an idea of the standards priests must uphold. (they must uphold a lot more than sexual purity, of course, but this is also essential). btw, a Christian is to fight even sins of thought, not only of deed or word.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:Yes, but their structure is much different. So the ability for them to hide is a lot close to Protestant Churches being allowed to hide. The difference is that OC congregations are small enough and they are not connected as the CC that they don’t get the publicity.
[/quote]
The structure is different, the parishes are small enough that the Priest can’t really do anything and keep it private or a secret.
And, I think it is didiscalia allows 1 liturgy per priest, and 1 liturgy per altar per day. Long abandoned by the RC.
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
[quote]Yes, let’s be mature and honest with outselves, you can broaden that term as being 3 out of 5 people have some problem like OCD, alcoholism, obsession with pornography. 50 percent of Church going Christians (it’s actually higher in other congregations than it is in the Catholic Church) have an addiction to pornography.
What happened to Priests being held to a higher standard. I appreciate though that you are not calling me a liar. [/quote]
Someone who had sex even once before marriage may not (ever) become a priest.
If a priest jerks off on a few separate occasions after being ordained he is to be defrocked.
If a priest’s wife cheats on him he must either leave her or leave the clergy…
[/quote]
All true, and I’ve seen all applied at least once. These are all in the Apostolic Constitution which the RC church used to hold to. If a man is anally raped he is impeded from the priesthood.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
[quote]Yes, let’s be mature and honest with outselves, you can broaden that term as being 3 out of 5 people have some problem like OCD, alcoholism, obsession with pornography. 50 percent of Church going Christians (it’s actually higher in other congregations than it is in the Catholic Church) have an addiction to pornography.
What happened to Priests being held to a higher standard. I appreciate though that you are not calling me a liar. [/quote]
Someone who had sex even once before marriage may not (ever) become a priest.
If a priest jerks off on a few separate occasions after being ordained he is to be defrocked.
If a priest’s wife cheats on him he must either leave her or leave the clergy…
[/quote]
All true, and I’ve seen all applied at least once. These are all in the Apostolic Constitution which the RC church used to hold to. If a man is anally raped he is impeded from the priesthood. [/quote]
Bull. Shit.
Sources. Please.
EDIT: Refers to both the above quotes.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
[quote]Yes, let’s be mature and honest with outselves, you can broaden that term as being 3 out of 5 people have some problem like OCD, alcoholism, obsession with pornography. 50 percent of Church going Christians (it’s actually higher in other congregations than it is in the Catholic Church) have an addiction to pornography.
What happened to Priests being held to a higher standard. I appreciate though that you are not calling me a liar. [/quote]
Someone who had sex even once before marriage may not (ever) become a priest.
If a priest jerks off on a few separate occasions after being ordained he is to be defrocked.
If a priest’s wife cheats on him he must either leave her or leave the clergy…
[/quote]
All true, and I’ve seen all applied at least once. These are all in the Apostolic Constitution which the RC church used to hold to. If a man is anally raped he is impeded from the priesthood. [/quote]
Bull. Shit.
Sources. Please.
EDIT: Refers to both the above quotes.[/quote]
The Apostolic Constitutions is a standard text in Roman Catholic seminaries. I’ve read it all in hard copy and no Roman Catholic theologian would reject any of the statements made above. I’ll try to find oyu an online text.
her is some.
http://www.thenazareneway.com/apostolic_constitutions/book_1-VI.htm
Its like 8 volumes and was the guidelines that the Church used before the time of the Councils. In fact, the Ecumenical councils “rules” were patterned after AC.
I will ask a couple of early church scholars tomorrow.
[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
Anyway, it’s still very bad, because the number of Catholic clergy is not equal to that of lay persons, or even male lay persons.
[/quote]
No, it’s not. Good point, however let’s look at the data.
Catholic priests have the least percentage wise of the total victims (2%). And, compared to other clergyman, they have comparable numbers, but are the least among clergy man at 1.5%. Compared to the male population (in general, not just looking at the groups like family members or fathers specifically) to the Catholic Priests: the male population has double the percentage of pedophiles within it’s population than Catholic Priests.
And, as you said the Catholic Church’s clergy is not equal to the male lay persons, not in the Church and especially not including those who are not in the Church.
Meaning out of all the groups of perpetrators, Catholic Priests have the least in their ranks percentage wise. To those in their ranks that are pedophiles, the pedophiles have the least amount of victims percentage wise of the 39 million victims.
So, it’s interesting that such a small group of people, with relatively small numbers of pedophiles in its rank, and with such a small number of victims gets so much news as if they were the king pin of all the pedophiles across the world.